We Are Not African American

Introduction 

George Catlin - (North American Indians Vol. 1  pg. 94 & 95)
"From these few facts alone, the reader will see that I'm amongst a strange and interesting people, and know how to pardon me, if I lead him through a maze of novelty and mysteries to the knowledge of a strange, yet kind hospitable, people, whose fate, like that of all their race is sealed; whose doom is fixed, to live just long enough to be imperfectly known and then fall before the fell disease or sword of civilizing devastation."

                             

We Are Not African-American
 

First let me say we already know that there will be confusion about what we are saying.  We only ask that you view this information with an open mind.  Some of us don’t view racial heritage as being important. However, racial heritage is just as important as knowing your parentage. Many of us have been told or have heard about our Indian heritage. We've mistakenly believed that this meant we were Native Americans. Thus when DNA tests were taken and no DNA link to Native Americans was established, we've erroneously accepted the remaining strong African link as our heritage.

When Columbus arrived he thought he was in India and therefore called all the peoples of this land Indians. Columbus was not aware that there were, at least, three separate peoples living in the Americas: Moors, Asians, and an indigenous group. Our ancestors, the indigenous group,  lived here and may have been known as the Anasazi people.

The elders in our family had knowledge of these distinct groupings of peoples but was forced to accepted the blanket designation "Indian" as their own. Our elders knew we were not African. This is the genetic trap Henry Louis Gates fell into in his program "Finding Your Roots". Gates compared the DNA of Asian (Native Americans) to that of possibly Indigenous Americans and correctly found no match but mistakenly concluded that the tested individuals were of slave descent with European highlights.

Our DNA is an infallible record of our heritage and can accurately detail our heritage. We estimate that over 80% of people designated as "African" are actually indigenous.

The Americas is where our ancestors lived and were buried for over 10,000 years. Recent archaeological findings of bone fragments is beginning to recover the DNA of the ancient Americans we believe to be our ancestors.

We are an ancient people who have been stripped of the knowledge of their heritage. That knowledge has been replaced with stories of slave ships and made up tales like the movie "Roots" http://www.martinlutherking.org/roots.html. The recovered DNA of the ancient Americans will restore our lineage, and irrefutably establish our claim to the Americas as our ancestral home.

Goals

Our Goals

We have three goals:

1. We intend to show our people how they can identify themselves as an Indigenous American.

2. We want Indigenous Americans to come together and set an agenda defining how we are to proceed.

3. We want to name ourselves, our DNA proves we are a viable community that is separate and distinct from the so-called African or Native American community. We need our people to understand that by accepting the term African American we give up our lineage and all rights to our country because this country has no obligation to Africans. 

Legislative Removal of the Indigenous People of America

Legislative Removal of the Indigenous People of America

In order to understand what happened to the indigenous Americans you must first look at the laws passed by the European conquerors. In particular you must review the Jamestown Laws on Slavery, which, under several pretexts,  legislatively grouped  and regrouped the indigenous people with Indians, Moors, Turks, and African slaves, and the Slave Trade Act of 1794, stopped the deportation of the slaves (the Indigenous Americans) out of America but did not stop the slave trade between the states.

The Jamestown Laws on Slavery

March 1655/6-ACT I. An Induction to the Acts concerning Indians

[Colonial legislators created a distinction between Native Americans and Africans in this statute.]

"If the Indians shall bring in any children as gages of their good and quiet intentions to us and amity with us, then the parents of such children shall choose the persons to whom the care of such children shall be intrusted and the countrey by us their representatives do engage that wee will not use them as slaves, but do their best to bring them up in Christianity, civillity and the knowledge of necessary trades; And on the report of the commissioners of each respective country that those under whose tuition they are, do really intend the bettering of the children in these particulars then a salary shall be allowed to such men as shall deserve and require it."

Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, vol. 1, p. 396 (Commonwealth).


March 1661/2-ACT CXXXVIII. Concerning Indians.

[The legislators decided that Native American and English servants were to serve their masters the same length of time.]

"And be it further enacted that what Englishman, trader, or other shall bring in any Indians as servants and shall assigne them over to any other, shall not sell them for slaves nor for any longer time than English of the like ages should serve by act of assembly."

Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, vol. 2, p. 143.

September 1667-ACT III. An act declaring that baptisme of slaves doth not exempt them from bondage.

[The passage of this statute indicates that Christianity was important to the concept of English identity. Legislators decided that slaves born in Virginia could not become free if they were baptized, but masters were encouraged to Christianize their enslaved laborers.]

"WHEREAS some doubts have risen whether children that are slaves by birth, and by the charity and piety of their owners made pertakers of the blessed sacrament of baptisme, should by vertue of their baptisme be made ffree; It is enacted and declared by this grand assembly, and the authority thereof, that the conferring of baptisme doth not alter the condition of the person as to his bondage or ffreedome; that diverse masters, ffreed from this doubt, may more carefully endeavour the propagation of christianity by permitting children, though slaves, or those of greater growth if capable to be admitted to that sacrament."

Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, vol. 2, p. 260.

October 1670-ACT IV. Noe Negroes nor Indians to buy christian servants.

[The number of blacks and Native Americans in Tidewater Virginia was small when this act was passed. The legislators knew that access to labor was necessary to succeed.]

"WHEREAS it hath beene questioned whither Indians or negroes manumited, or otherwise free, could be capable of purchasing christian servants, It is enacted that noe negroe or Indian though baptised and enjoyned their owne ffreedome shall be capable of any such purchase of christians, but yet not debarred from buying any of their owne nation."

Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, vol. 2, pp. 280-281.

October 1670-ACT XII. What tyme Indians to serve.
[This law created an additional distinction between African Americans and Native Americans. It was an attempt to make lifetime servitude the normal condition for all Africans imported into Virginia. The legislators repealed this statute in November 1682.]

"WHEREAS some dispute have arisen whither Indians taken in warr by any other nation, and by that nation that taketh them sold to the English, are sevants for life or terme of yeares, It is resolved and enacted that all servants not being christians imported into this colony by shipping shalbe slaves for their lives; but what shall come by land shall serve, if boyes or girles, untill thirty yeares of age, if men or women twelve yeares and no longer."

Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, vol. 2, p. 283.

June 1676-ACT I. An act for carrying on a warre against the barbarous Indians.

[In 1676 many Virginians were alarmed by Governor Berkeley's poor leadership and weak response in handling the Indian threat by merely suggesting a series of forts be built along the frontier rather than dispatching troops. Nathaniel Bacon, a member of England's gentry newly arrived in Virginia, became the military leader of a band of Virginians who armed themselves against the Indians in defiance of the governor in the spring of that year. Berkeley responded by unsuccessfully dispatching men to confront Bacon and declared him a rebel. Until Bacon's death from natural causes on October 26, 1676 he and Governor Berkeley struggled to control Virginia militarily and politically, embroiling Virginians in civil war. After the Assembly enacted many of Bacon's demands, Bacon with five hundred men captured the government and demanded from Berkeley the power to fight the Indians. That was granted on June 25 but later withdrawn. The governor, however, could not raise loyal troops to assert his authority and was forced to retreat to the Eastern Shore. Berkeley later returned to Jamestown to prepare for Bacon's attack but was forced to return to the Eastern Shore while Bacon burned the capital. Virginians, hesitant to fight one another, continued to vacillate in their support of Berkeley and Bacon in the ever-increasing confusion. Bacon's men, however, now turned to plundering loyalist plantations in Gloucester County and elsewhere. Bacon's sudden death left his men without a strong leader, and in January 1677 Berkeley returned to power and sought reparations for the loyalists. During the Rebellion the Indians probably suffered the most. Many were killed and a number of their villages were destroyed. In June of 1676 members of the Assembly decided that Native Americans captured during the rebellion would become slaves for life.]

"And bee it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that all Indians taken in warr be held and accounted slaves dureing life, and if any differences shall arise in cases about plunder or slaves, the cheife commander of the party takeing such slaves or plunder is to be the sole judge thereof to make equall division as hee shall see fit."

Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, vol. 2, p. 346 (BACON'S LAWS).

November 1682-ACT I. An act to repeale a former law making Indians and others ffree.

[Two acts passed in November of 1682 joined Native Americans, [Indigenous Americans,] and Africans into one racial category-"negroes and other slaves."]

"And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid that all servants except Turkes and Moores, whilest in amity with his majesty which from and after publication of this act shall be brought or imported into this country, either by sea or land, whether Negroes, Moors, Mollattoes or Indians, who and whose parentage and native country are not christian at the time of their first purchase of such servant by some christian, although afterwards, and before such their importation and bringing into this country, they shall be converted to the christian faith; and all Indians which shall hereafter be sold by our neighbouring Indians, or any other trafiqueing with us as for slaves are hereby adjudged, deemed and taken to be slaves to all intents and purposes, any law, usage or custome to the countrary notwithstanding."

Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, vol. 2, pp. 491-492

November 1682-ACT II. An act declaring Indian women servants tithables.

"WHEREAS it hath bin doubted whether Indian women servants sold to the English above the age of sixteene yeares be tythable, Bee it enacted and declared, and it is hereby enacted and declared by the governour, councill and burgesses of this generall assembly and the authority thereof, that all Indian women are and shall be tythables, and ought to pay levies in like manner as negroe women brought into this country doe, and ought to pay."

Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, vol. 2, p. 492.

October 1705-CHAP. IV. An act declaring who shall not bear office in this country.

[The text of this act suggests that a free man of color did hold an office sometime before October of 1705. The statute contains the first definition of a mulatto in Virginia's laws.]

"BE it enacted by the governor, council and burgesses, of this present general assembly, and it is hereby enacted by the authority of the same, That no person whatsoever, already convicted, or which hereafter shall be convicted in her majestys kingdom of England in this or in any other her majestys dominion, colonies, islands, territorys or plantations, or in any other kingdom, dominion or place, belonging to any foreigh prince or state whatsoever, of treason, murther, fellony, blasphemy, perjury, forgery or any other crime whatsoever, punishable by the laws of England, this country, or other place wherein he was convicted with the loss of life or member, nor any negro, mulatto or Indian, shall, from and after the publication of this act, bear any office, ecclesiasticall, civill or military, or be in any place of public trust or power, within this her majestys colony and dominion of Virginia, and that if any person convicted as aforesaid, or negro, mulatto or Indian shall presume to take upon him, act in, or exercise any office, ecclesiasticall, civill or military, or any place of publick trust or power, within this colony and dominion, notwithstanding he be thereunto in any manner whatsoever comissionated, appointed, chosen or impowered, and have a pardon for his crime, he shall for such his offence, forfeit and pay five hundred pounds current money, and twenty pounds of like money for every month he continues to act in or exercise such office or place after a recovery made of the said five hundred pounds.
And for clearing all manner of doubts which hereafter may happen to arise upon the construction of this act, or any other act, who shall be accounted a mulatto,
Be it enacted and declared, and it is hereby enacted and declared, That the child of an Indian and the child, grand child, or great grand child, of a negro shall be deemed, accounted, held and taken to be a mulatto."

Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, vol. 3, pp. 250-251, 252.

The full text of the James Town Laws can be viewed at  www.vagenweb.org/hening/vol02-24.htm

The Slave Trade Act of 1794

The bill was introduced during the 3rd Congress that convened December 2, 1793. This bill was then passed March 22, 1794, with the title: An Act to prohibit the carrying on the Slave Trade from the United States to any foreign place or country.

Text of the law

"Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That no citizen or citizens of the United States, or foreigner, or any other person coming into, or residing within the same, shall, for himself or any other person whatsoever, either as master, factor or owner, build, fit, equip, load or otherwise prepare any ship or vessel, within any port or place of said United States, nor shall cause any ship or vessel to sail from any port or place within same, for the purpose of carrying on any trade or traffic in slaves, to any foreign country; or for the purpose of procuring, from any foreign kingdom, place or country, the inhabitants of such kingdom, place or country, to be transported to any foreign country, port, or place whatever, to be sold or disposed of, as slaves: And if any ship or vessel shall be so fitted out, as aforesaid, for the said purposes, or shall be caused to sail, so as aforesaid, every ship or vessel, her tackle, furniture, apparel and other appurtenances, shall be forfeited to the United States; and shall be liable to be seized, prosecuted and condemned, in any of the circuit courts or district court for the district where said ship or vessel may be found and seized."

Section 2 allows for forfeiture by owners and the possibility of a $2,000 fine. Section 3 affected foreign merchants. Section 4 forfeited any slaves on board the ship and a fine of $200 per slave. In short, the Act limited the international slave trade to foreign ships, and foreign ships using United States' ports had to agree not to export from U.S. ports.

Terms and Definitions

Terms and Definitions

The following are the terms and definitions we use on this site. We've included them for clarity.

Aboriginal - Of or relating to the people and things that have been in a region from the earliest time.

Admix - To mingle with or add to something else.

American - An aboriginal or one of the copper colored natives found on the American continent by the Europeans; the original application of the name. Webster's 20th Century Dictionary of the English Language.

Ameridian - American Indian.

Anasazi - A prehistoric indigenous inhabitant of the canyons of northern Arizona and New Mexico and southwestern Colorado.

Blood-Line - A sequence of direct ancestors especially in a pedigree; also :  family,strain.

Blood-Type -Any of the four main types into which human blood is divided: A, B, AB, and O. Blood types are based on the presence or absence of certain substances, called antigens, on red blood cells. Also called blood group.

Indian - A member of any of the [aboriginal] peoples of the western hemisphere except often the Eskimos; especially :  an American Indian of North America and especially the United States.

Mitochondrial DNA - An extranuclear double-stranded DNA found exclusively in mitochondria that in most eukaryotes is a circular molecule and is maternally inherited —abbreviation mtDNA.

Native American -  Native American is now fully established in American English as an equivalent of Indian, being acceptable in all contemporary contexts and preferred inmany. It is especially appropriate as a term of respect used by outsiders, who may have concerns that Indian could cause offense by its association with longstanding cultural stereotypes. Native American is the clear choice in many formal contexts, not only because it indicates respect but, more pragmatically, because it avoids any ambiguity between indigenous American peoples and the inhabitants of India. But despite its wide acceptance,Native American has not displaced Indian to any significant degree outside of formal contexts, and it is now common to find the two terms used interchangeably in the same piece of writing.

Y-DNA - Y-DNA Haplogroups are the groupings of mankind based on analysis of the y-chromosome, which has been passed from father to son since the beginning of mankind.